The present update is dedicated to the evolution of the interaction between heart failure (HF) and exercise and how the scientific community has handled it. Indeed, on the one hand, HF is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality with a stable prevalence from 1998 onward varying between 6.3% and 13.3%. On the other hand, exercise is seen as a diagnostic and prognostic tool as well as a therapeutic intervention in chronic HF. More precisely, the knowledge, the clinical application, and the research interest on the mutual interactions between exercise and HF have different phases in disease progression: Before HF onset (past): exercise provides protective benefit in preventing HF (primary prevention).With HF present: exercise improvement with training provides benefits in HF (secondary prevention).The prediction of future in HF patients: exercise impairment, as a leading characteristic of HF, is used as a prognostic factor.

The battle against COVID-19 has entered a new phase with Rehabilitation Centres being among the major players, because the medical outcome of COVID-19 patients does not end with the control of pulmonary inflammation marked by a negative virology test, as many patients continue to suffer from long-COVID-19 syndrome. Exercise training is known to be highly valuable in patients with cardiac or lung disease, and it exerts beneficial effects on the immune system and inflammation. We therefore reviewed past and recent papers about exercise training, considering the multifactorial features characterizing post-COVID-19 patients’ clinical conditions. Consequently, we conceived a proposal for a post-COVID-19 patient exercise protocol as a combination of multiple recommended exercise training regimens. Specifically, we built pre-evaluation and exercise training for post-COVID-19 patients taking advantage of the various programs of exercise already validated for diseases that may share pathophysiological and clinical characteristics with long-COVID-19.

SUMMARY: Aim: To assess the effect of chronotropic incompetence on functional capacity in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients, as evaluated as NYHA and peak oxygen consumption (pVO₂), focusing on the presence and dose of β‐blocker treatment. Methods: Nine hundred and sixty‐seven consecutive CHF patients were evaluated, 328 of whom were discarded because they failed to meet the study criteria. Of the 639 analyzed, 90 were not treated with β‐blockers whereas the other 549 were. The latter were further subdivided in high (n = 184) and low (n = 365) β‐blockers daily dose group in accordance with an arbitrary cut‐off of 25 mg for carvedilol and of 5 mg for bisoprolol. Failure to achieve 80% of the percentage of maximum age predicted peak heart rate (%Max PHR) or of HR reserve (%HRR) constituted chronotropic incompetence. Results: No differences were found in NYHA or pVO2 between patients with and without β‐blockers and, similarly, between high and low β‐blocker dose groups. Twenty and sixty‐nine percent of not β‐blocked patients showed chronotropic incompetence according to %Max PHR and %HRR, respectively, whereas this prevalence rose to 61% and 84% in those on β‐blocker therapy. Patients taking β‐blockers without chronotropic incompetence, as inferable from both %Max PHR and %HRR, showed higher NYHA and pVO2 regardless of drug dose, whereas, in not β‐blocked patients, only %HRR revealed a difference in functional capacity. At multivariable analysis, HR increase during exercise (ΔHR) was the variable most strongly associated to pVO2 (β: 0.572; SE: 0.008; P < 0.0001) and NYHA class (β: −0.499; SE: 0.001; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: ΔHR is a powerful predictor of CHF severity regardless of the presence of β‐blocker therapy and of β‐blocker daily dose.

Cardiac output is a key parameter in the assessment of cardiac function, and its measurement is fundamental to the diagnosis, treatment, and prognostic evaluation of all heart diseases. Until recently, cardiac output determination during exercise had been only possible through invasive methods, which were not practical in the clinical setting. Because V.o2 is cardiac output times arteriovenous content difference, evaluation of cardiac output is usually included in its measurement. Because of the difficulty of directly measuring peak exercise cardiac output, indirect surrogate parameters have been proposed, but with only modest clinical usefulness. Direct measurement of cardiac output can now be made by several noninvasive techniques, such as rebreathing inert gases, impedance cardiology, thoracic bioreactance, estimated continuous cardiac output technology, and transthoracic echocardiography coupled to cardiopulmonary exercise testing, which allow more definitive results and better understanding of the underlying physiopathology.

Aims: Exercise oscillatory ventilation (EOV) is a pivotal cardiopulmonary exercise test parameter for the prognostic evaluation of patients with chronic heart failure (HF). It has been described in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (50%, HFpEF), but no data are available for patients with HF with mid-range ejection fraction (40–49%, HFmrEF). The aim of the study was to evaluate the prognostic role of EOV in HFmrEF patients. Methods and results: We analysed 1239 patients with HFmrEF and 4482 patients with HFrEF, enrolled in the MECKI score database, with a 2-year follow-up. The study endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, urgent heart transplant, and ventricular assist device implantation. We identified EOV in 968 cases (16% and 17% of cases in HFmrEF and HFrEF, respectively). HFrEF EOV+ patients were significantly older, and their parameters suggested a more severe HF than HFrEF EOV− patients. A similar behaviour was found in HFmrEF EOV+ vs. EOV− patients. Kaplan–Meier analysis, irrespective of ejection fraction, showed that EOV is associated with a worse survival, and that patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF EOV+ had a significantly worse outcome than the EOV− of the same ejection fraction groups. EOV-associated survival differences in HFmrEF patients started after 18 months of follow-up. Conclusion: Exercise oscillatory ventilation has a similar prevalence and ominous prognostic value in both HFmrEF and HFrEF patients, indicating a group of patients in need of a more intensive follow-up and a more aggressive therapy. In HFmrEF, the survival curves between EOV+ and EOV− patients diverged only after 18 months.

Heart failure is a complex syndrome affecting several organs including kidney, lungs, liver, brain muscles and sympathetic system. Each of these organs might contribute to its severity and prognosis. The prognosis assessment is critical for a correct heart failure management. It has already been demonstrated that a single parameter is weaker for prognosis than different parameters combined. The Metabolic Exercise test data combined with Cardiac and Kidney Indexes (MECKI) score has been built and validated for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients by considering cardiopulmonary exercise test data combined with clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic measurements. The betablockers treatment is a milestone in the HFrEF management. In the MECKI score database, the association of betablockers treatment with outcome has been investigated in different settings.